Ideally, that's true. It is often claimed that science and religion are entirely separate from one another, in that science tries to answer the 'how' of things and religion tries to answer the 'why.' Religion, some people tell us, isn't about the physical world at all, but only about the supernatural or the divine.
However, I don't believe that this is actually true in practice. Every religious tradition I am aware of without exception, from Hinduism to Islam to Shintoism to Christianity, makes empirical claims about the physical world.
All empirical claims about the physical world are matters best evaluated by evidence, not faith. If a seer or a prophet or a guru or a shaman makes claims about the age of the world, or the size of the world, or the nature of physical law, or states that thus-and-such an activity will persuade a supernatural deity to cure a disease (as long as it's not a missing limb or a lost eye, anyway--god has always had severe limits when it comes to miracle cures) or strike one's adversaries dead with lightning, those are empirical claims that can be tested.
The faithful often play a game in which they make empirical claims about the physical world, then retreat into "you can't test religion with the tools of science, empiricism isn't appropriate for matters of faith" when those claims are put to the test.
And like I said before, every time a religious faith has made an empirical claim about the physical world which has disagreed with science, the science has been right and the faith has been wrong. If we can not trust faith to give us the right answers on issues where we can check the answers, how can we trust faith to get the right answers on issues where we can't check the answers?
tacit I just have to ask: if you truly believe science is superior, why do you feel so compelled to repeat the same stuff over and over? It smacks of insecurity. Who exactly are you preaching to? We are on page 10 now... and since page 2 it seems you've been battling an invisible God or something. We are Mac users here... not retards. Give it a rest. No one here really needs these repetitious sermons. Do you need them, for some reason? [i would enjoy hearing something *new* from you.]
Originally Posted By: sandbox
I recognized that the objective to the question asked, was to make a connection between hard science and faith. Some thought using mysticism was an answer; others use the soft sciences to make their point. I did not notice that Tacit had not applied soft science in any of his analysis. His Linguistics tried to explain how the issues was being confused. Using the science of Cultural Anthropology he demonstrated how and why the connection couldn't be made. Others also made the same distinctions, examples of how Giants in the field of both disciplines were trying to find a Consilience to move the argument forward were posted, all within the bounds of science. The only time that the argument left the realm of science is when mysticism was introduced and attempts were made to validate it.
I have no clue what you're babbling about either. Are you feeling like someone is forcing faith down your throat? Someone here? You have a problem with people living their own lives the way they choose? You want to dictate what they should do? Or just reaffirm that your way is superior to some imaginary poster here?
There's something unnatural artificial about all this.
